Order no. 11
The fact of the complainant in brief is that a life Insurance policy bearing no.N002919510 dated 03.06.2014 having nomenclature ‘Kotak Assured income Plan’ was adopted by Sri Mantu Das, the complainant by issuing a cheque of Rs.50,000/- in favour of Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd., P.S. Park Street, Kolkata- 700016. Complainant issued the cheque with the knowledge that it was an one time investment as he was convinced or he developed such assumption . But after receiving the policy document complainant attempted to cancel the said policy on 31.12.2014 by submitting a letter of request. But the company refused to cancel the policy by issuing a letter dated 14.01.2015 on the plea that the request was submitted beyond the free look period. Being aggrieved the complainant resorted to file this complaint for relief with interest, cost and compensation.
Ld lawyer of the opposite party argued that complainant had failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps. If the action of the o.p. is found to be in good faith, there is no deficiency of service. The complaint is neither maintainable in law nor in facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limini. Ld lawyer of the o.p. argued that the policy was issued as per details mentioned in the proposal form received by the o.p. through an independent broker. The policy was ultimately in the lapse mode when the complainant applied for cancellation of the same. Further the allegation of the complainant is that the policy was presented to him as one time payment policy which is totally an afterthought of the policy holder. Further the allegations of the complainant regarding the mismatch of signatures is nothing but an afterthought of the complainant. The policy under consideration is a legal contract between the policy holder and the insurer and parties to it are bound by its terms and conditions of the policy. Admittedly, the proposal form was signed by the complainant and on the basis of the said proposal form, the subject policy was issued by the o.p. If a person signs any document it is presumed that he has signed after reading it and understanding it properly along with the terms and conditions mentioned, therein. Thus the present complaint deserves to be dismissed.
Ld lawyer of the complainant argued that the agent representing the o.ps had indulged the complainant to avail an insurance policy under the head of Kotak Assured Income Plan by induction of assurance. Ld lawyer added that the o.ps never explained the complainant about the terms and conditions of the said policy. The provision of free look period was not made clear to the policy holder well ahead for which the petitioner could not avail the facility of free look period regarding modification/cancellation of the policy. Complainant made several attempts for cancellation of the policy and for refund of Rs.50,000/-.
Complainant pointed out that an insurance policy holder under “Kotak Assured Income Plan” will have to pay Rs.50,000/- in each year for 10 years but after the policy period ie, 30 years the return benefit is Rs.4,85,010/- which is well below the amount deposited i.e. Rs.5,00,000/-. The same deposited amount (i.e. Rs.5 lakh) would come in the hand of the nominee of the policy holder after the death of the policy holder. Being misrepresented by unfair trade practices of the opposite parties, complainant accepted such insurance policy.
On the basis of the pleading of the parties the following are to be decided.
- Whether there was delay in receiving the policy document by the complainant;
- Whether the policy holder was persuaded to avail of the policy by disarraying of consideration;
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons
All points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Complainant is silent about the actual date of receipt of the policy document (Policy no.02919510 dtd 03.06.2019. Complainant stated in the complaint that “that after passage of few days your petitioner received a policy in the name of your petitioner being policy no.02919510 dated 03.06.2014 under Kotak Assured Income Plan”. The complainant did not claim anywhere that he received the policy beyond the free look period. The complainant on 31.12.2014 intimated the Regional Manager about his inability to continue so many policies purchased by him and requested for refund of the Policy no.02919510 dt 03.06.2019 though he submitted a declaration on 30.05.2014 in favour of the policy. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. The point of persuasion /coercion/disarraying of consideration made by agent as raised by the complainant has not been substantiated by any document of evidence. Regarding the allegation of mismatch of signature the complainant attempted no drive in favour of his allegation. Considering the submission and argument of both policies it is evident that the complainant is not entitled to get relief as prayed for.
His application for refund may be considered by the o.p. within the periphery of the policy under consideration but the complaint CC/248/2015 against the o.p. is hereby dismissed without cost.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
